The Downsides of the High Risk, Low Reward Kickstart Business Model

This past week an author who writes young adult books as well as erotic romances posted a Kickstarter weeks after the release of her latest YA novel. The novel failed to have a strong buy-in from retailers and because of that the publisher, Random House, did not invite the author to go back to contract for subsequent books in the series.

The author was asking for production costs as well as living expenses for the time it would take for her to write a sequel to this underperforming YA book. She admitted in the Kickstarter that she had been writing full-time as an author for several years and that she had self published 10 novels under a pseudonym in the previous year successfully.

Ultimately the author removed the Kickstarter after someone who knew her sent her an arial photograph of her home. I guess the suggestion was that she had plenty of money to fund her own writing projects. I feel like I shouldn’t have to say this, but this is so obviously wrong. Stalking is wrong and it’s no way for civil human beings to engage in a disagreement.

So stop.

If you aren’t aware, Kickstarter is a micro funding site where project ideas are submitted to the general public with a set fundraising goal. If the goal is met, the pledged monies are released to the project owner. If the goal is not met, the pledged funds are automatically refunded. Kickstarter’s liability or responsibility begins and ends there. It claims no responsibility for any failure on the project owner to fulfill the project.

In exchange for a donation, an individual is entitled to receive a reward. The reward is different based on how much you donate. For this particular Kickstarter, $10 would get you an ebook package and personal thanks in the acknowledgement along with a mention in a song the author promised to release later down the road. For $20, you received the book, swag (unspecified other than a bookmark), and if you were a blogger, you got to post promotional materials like an excerpt or interview. The reward levels went up from there to $500 wherein you got to choose the character of novella of approximately 20,000 words and the story would be dedicated to you.

This is not unlike a patronage system of old wherein wealthy individuals would provide living expenses in exchange for the prestige of being connected to the artist. Any donation in a Kickstarter is really a gift because despite the KS terms of service indicating that you do have the right to pursue the project owner in case of failed delivery, it encourages you not to do so and feasibly, the monetary costs would be enormous. Ergo, the likelihood of any KS project owner being sued for failing to deliver is probably close to zero.

One well-beloved artist who had his Kickstarter funded to the tune of $51K ended up burning all the books in an alley and posted a video of himself doing the burning because he ran out of money to ship the books.

It’s one story of non-delivery but that’s the risk you take as someone donating to a KS. Non-delivery, production problems, and delays are all part of the process. The Lizzie Bennet Diaries, for example, was funded in two days but it took over a year to get the DVDs delivered after it was funded and missed over a half a dozen deadlines in the process. To say people were antsy about this was an understatement. There were also some complaints about what was done with the DVD distribution after the fact.

Many of us are aware of the Vera Nazarian situation in which several fundraisers were held for her and she was given over $30,000 to save her home, save her life, and pay authors. None of which actually came to fruition, including the payment of the authors of her small press.

The problem with Kickstarters is multi-layered and it requires anyone who donates to understand a couple things.

The reward may be a long time in coming

The reward may never come

What the creator does with the end project isn’t up to you even if you did donate, no matter how much you donated.

So in general, those are my issues with Kickstarters. This is not to say I haven’t given money to a KS. I have. One. I bought the Nomad charge card because Nomad didn’t have a separate purchase site available. It was a product fully funded and delivering at the time I donated. But I did donate, technically.

As it relates to books and readers, I have another set of issues because as this issue was discussed around the publishing blogosphere and social media, a couple things were alleged:

1) People who objected to the KS were anti-author

2) People who objected to the KS were misogynists

3) People who objected to the KS were bullies

4) People who objected to the KS wanted stuff for free / didn’t want the author to get paid.

5) The KS was an advance

So, of course, I said something. (And then was subsequently accused of being a Mean Girl who drove yet another author out of publishing).

1) The Kickstarter shifts risk to the only person in the publishing ecosystem that doesn’t benefit.

One of my primary problems with an author KS is that it shifts the risk from the author to the reader. If KS become the norm in publishing it would mean the reader is 100% responsible for books coming to the market. Yet they garner no reward. Yes, they get a book but in an ordinary publishing marketplace, readers get books when they purchase, rent, or borrow it. In the KS business model, no book exists until or unless the reader funds the project, ordinarily at a super premium rate.

In the case of the author above, she was asking for production expenses as well as living expenses and thus every sale after the release was money in her pocket. I saw a lot of discussions that centered around the fact that the money the author was asking for was less than what she made as a romance author under another pseudonym, but that argument works only if you presume that she sells no copies.

If she sells no copies and distributes the ebooks only to those readers who contributed, then yes, that calculation is correct, but given that the author had planned to sell the book after she had completed it, the amount of money she would have earned off the book would have been the KS funds + the funds of the sale.

The reader who donates, no matter at what level, may never see a return on her donation. This is why I call it a gift.

Readers who participate in a KS are not business partners or investors or in any kind of shared relationship with the author. Once they gift the money and the KS is fully funded, that money is gone and the reward may or may not appear. It might appear within the time period specified by the author but who can say what might happen such as an illness in the family or writer’s block or a new project that is more compelling. The reader who donates takes on all the risk for potentially no reward.

The author risks nothing. She gets the money; she gets all the production expenses paid. She starts the project knowing that no matter how poorly it might sell, she’s already made a profit–a substantial one. For authors, the KS is amazing. You get your expenses all up front and you get to pocket all the profit. There isn’t any better set up for an author that exists in the current marketplace. I completely understand why there is such a huge pushback against criticism of the KS business model.

But from a reader standpoint, there is little reward and a lot of risk.

2) This is not an advance.

I saw a lot of authors refer to this as an advance or like an advance. It is not. An advance is money a publisher pays an author in advance of royalties earned. And the publisher keeps the first dollar of every sale until the amount of the advance is met and only then are additional sums of royalties paid by the publisher. Additionally, advances are paid in splits. Some part of the advance is paid upon signing, another part on the delivery and acceptance of the manuscript, and finally the last portion on the publication. Some contracts have escalation clauses which pay additional advance money if certain achievements are hit like placement on a national bestseller list.

So in traditional publishing, where the advance appears, only a portion of it is actually paid before the author starts writing.

There are many other ways other than the monetary aspect in which the publisher relationship differs from the author and the donator.

For instance, publishers often do not pay advances until there is a several page synopsis delivered by the author. Sometimes (particularly with new and unknown authors) publishers will only look at full manuscripts, which again, strikes against the pre-payment of an author’s work before it is complete. Additionally, submissions to publishers often include sales numbers to signify past successes. Once the submission is accepted and the advance is paid, the publisher has additional rights. They can refuse a manuscript if it doesn’t live up to their standards. They can ask for changes not only in the cover but also in the content of the book.

The reader/donator has none of those rights. She doesn’t have the right to tell the author that the author should go back and rewrite the ending because it isn’t satisfying or to flesh out characters who aren’t fully developed.

In the ordinary economy of publishing, the author owes the reader nothing. Neil Gaiman is nearly universally celebrated by authors for saying “George RR Martin is not your bitch” in response to demands George RR Martin put out his work faster than once every five years or so. But in the KS business model, you are creating a system in which readers are placed in a position of having the right to demand things from “this isn’t the cover I was hoping for” to “this isn’t the story I wanted” to “why are you giving it away for free” or “why did you blog at this blog when they didn’t donate” to “why isn’t it out yet?”

There are a whole host of unwritten obligations that, fair or not, the reader will start to create due to the super premium that they paid.

Additionally when a project is pitched to publishers, it usually indicates if this is a three book series or five book series or a duology. This is because the publisher wants to know what they are in for.

Recently I saw two authors come out indicating that their books would be trilogies but then extended them beyond that with no determined ending to them. If you funded a Kickstarter, the reader would have no right to have the author wrap the series up and the reader might very well find herself facing another KS.

I read one author share how she did one KS for her book. It was funded and she sold copies after the fact but she overspent her marketing budget and had to go back and do another KS for book two.

So, no, the KS donation is not an advance in any way but one. The author gets money before a project is completed. The reader? She gets nothing until the project is completed, if the project is completed.

The KS is unique in this way and not even traditional publishing gives such beneficial terms.

I was troubled with the lack of transparency and ultimate goals. One of the project’s goals was to maintain a website. Not two years later and the site is stagnant. I’m not sure if even the project creator visits it anymore.

But some readers balked at paying living expenses. They said that they would pay production expenses but they didn’t want to fund the author’s living expenses while she wrote. This was used by authors to proclaim that readers did not either understand that authors needed to eat but also that readers didn’t want authors to be paid for their work.

I’m not sure where “I don’t want to donate in advance to someone’s living expenses” morphed into anti-author, reader entitlement but it did. That logical leap over a big canyon occurred. I deliberately excluded the author’s identities because it’s not about authors, but the concept here.

As to why other people are talking about living expenses, it could be because living expenses are something we all have to pay regardless of our avocations or jobs whereas the hard expenses are something that are above and beyond living expenses. The truth is in every fundraising organization, the hardest thing to get anyone to donate money for is a general fund that pays salaries. People will give money for libraries, monuments, science labs, but they do not like to donate for salaries.

Readers work hard and often work at low paying, thankless jobs. To see a person ask for donations to live when that person is able-bodied and can hold a job, then it becomes less obvious why they need donations for living expenses.

Further, the prospective donor might want more information such as how much are the living expenses. How much is the mortgage, rent, and utilities? If you are asking for donations, is there any way you can live on less and still bring the book to fruition? Are you making sacrifices as I will be to donate to your project? One of the above tweets said that a livable wage is different for everyone and no one should judge but when you are asking people to donate money to make up your livable wage, then people will question it. Just like in a charity, people want to know where their money is going and will it be used responsibly.

This does not mean that readers don’t think authors should be paid, but some prospective donors might want more information before they feel comfortable donating. And it could also mean that readers would simply rather fund an author’s life by buying a book when it’s complete.

Not wanting to fund an author’s living expenses or questioning the amount of the living expenses does not mean that the reader is anti-author, entitled, or wanting something for free. It merely means that she might have more questions or she might rather fund a different author’s living expenses that seem more reasonable or she might rather buy the book at the end, knowing in the case of a self published author that most of the money is flowing back to the author’s pocket.

4) If you don’t like the KS, then why are you even talking about it?

I’m talking about it for all the reasons we talk about book pricing and unfair publisher practices and different publishing models and different royalty issues. I’m talking about it because it affects readers and because I believe strongly that a publishing system funded largely on the donations of readers is not only wrong, but would lead to an even greater narrowing of books published.

Why? Because people are generally risk averse. They will donate to the authors who write books that they know and love rather than unknown, risky projects. If KS are the exception rather than the rule, then it might work in reverse but if KS became the norm? Only the most popular authors, with the largest fan bases, would get funded.

And book buying itself would contract because these projects require super fans to fund at a premium. Most of the kick starters I’ve seen require the buy in to be above and beyond what the end project would call for. In this particular Kickstarter, the author admitted she wouldn’t charge $10 for an ebook, but that was the lowest buy in where an ebook would be provided as a reward.

If superfans are required to pay a premium for each book that they want to read there would be a contraction in the overall volume of sales. Money isn’t infinite for most readers.

5) Bullying, misogyny, etc.

I barely feel like I should spend time on this topic. Maybe bullying happened behind the scenes. I certainly saw none of it and when I asked others to show me where the bullying was, I got this:

Disagreement does not equal bullying, even vigorous disagreement does not equal bullying. There was a lot of name calling on the other side with authors and others saying that those who disagreed with the kickstarter were “evil”, “cruel”, and “mean” and basically should just sod off.

I should note that many people discussed this project without linking to or specifically mentioning the author in question, much as I have done here.

By placing a public plea for donations, this became a public issue and disagreement or discussion is not bullying.

6) But, but what about Veronica Mars, Amanda Palmer, and the fact that kickstarter has existed for four years and you are just now complaining.

Um, no. I’ve never been a fan of KS. It’s not used frequently in the romance community although I understand it has been in the fan fiction community and science fiction community so my guess is that people were talking about it now and learning about it now and forming their opinions now because it was new to some people.

And Amanda Palmer got a lot of flack both before and after her KS. After her KS was fully funded, she then went on and asked others to perform for free for the project she got funded through KS. Lots didn’t like that. Zach Braff KSed a movie and received a ton of criticism for it.

Just over 24 hours later, Focus Features picked up the North American (and some foreign) distribution rights for Wish I Was Here, for roughly $2.75 million. Traditionally, in the indie film world, that acquisition fee would be used to pay back the budget of the film. According to producer Stacey Sher, however, Wish I Was Here’s Kickstarter backers will not see any of the money from the film’s sale. “That’s not the way Kickstarter works,” Sher, a veteran producer behind movies like Get Shorty, Pulp Fiction, Contagion, and Django Unchained, told BuzzFeed via phone. “That’s not what we promised anybody.”

Veronica Mars was slightly different in that it started with a major studio distribution via Warner Brothers. The money was to be placed in a “production account” and would be used for expenses related to production and one part of that would be salaries. Was the breakdown 70% salaries and 25% production expenses or was it something else? I don’t know.

But here’s the major difference between creative KS and ones for movies, technological products, and the like. There’s a big barrier to entry into the market. The costs of production are enormous for a movie, even setting aside salaries. Ditto with manufacturing a product. The barrier to entry for a self published author is minimal and in this case the author herself had successfully brought at least ten books to market by herself without funding.

Further, the rewards that author KS have are generally not really enticing (at least not to me). Other than the book that is signed (which can be obtained for free in many cases), the donator is not rarely something unique. So the reward to risk may feel flimsy compared to the rewards a movie production might offer. The reward to risk ratio may lend itself to part of the discontent readers have with pre-funding a project for an author.

In Summary:

The KS allows the author to shift all the risk of a project onto potential readers (largely super fans). In the above author’s case, she was asking for readers to reduce the opportunity cost—the foregone income she could be making working on a more profitable project such as her romance titles. Obviously only the people who donate can decide for themselves whether that risk is one they are willing to shoulder.

However, not wanting to participate or not wanting to donate for particular expenses doesn’t make a reader anti-author. It merely makes that reader a consumer, maybe a savvy one, who would rather fund the author through buying a completed project. Does that mean some projects the reader loves might not get published? Yes, that might be.

That’s the risk I’m willing to take by not funding KS and continuing to buy books, recommend them to my fellow readers, and give them away. If that makes me a misogynistic, anti-author bully who believes creators should not be paid, then I suppose I’ll have to accept that label even if I don’t believe it’s accurate.

Next week I’m doing my 2015 publishing predictions.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Jane Litte is the founder of Dear Author, a lawyer, and a lover of pencil skirts. She self publishes NA and contemporaries (and publishes with Berkley and Montlake) and spends her downtime reading romances and writing about them. Her TBR pile is much larger than the one shown in the picture and not as pretty.
You can reach Jane by email at jane @ dearauthor dot com

Comments

Not quite in the genre but kickstarters (along with patreon) have been a boon to the online web-comics field.

For people producing daily or weekly free content, it gives them a way of collecting money from fans without removing the free content. I do wonder if they get less backlash because they tend to have produced free art first (and the risk to the donors is lower).

I’m with you in that I hope KS doesn’t ever become the norm for authors, for all the reasons you outlined. I can’t say I’d never donate to a KS author project. But it would have to be an uber-favorite author and I honestly cannot picture any of my autobuy authors doing a KS.

I am tired of the way the word “bully” is bandied about. I am not a fan of The Princess Bride, but I think the whole “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” applies here. I also think it’s terrible that someone chose to stalk the author by sending her a picture of her house. I agree that should go without saying.

I’m glad you posted this summary, since I kept hearing the resulting flurry on social media but didn’t have the time to track down what had actually prompted it. I kept seeing all these angry tweets against people who apparently didn’t want writers to be paid or to eat and was baffled by who these people were.

I can understand why authors like the KS model and why a lot of readers might have concerns, for exactly the reasons you lay out. I tend to think the market will decide which authors’ projects are funded, in the same way it decides which authors make good money from their published books.

I didn’t see the original KS, so I can’t comment on that. But I’m troubled by the theme of guilt and responsibility I saw in a lot of the tweets by authors about this issue. I see more and more authors using guilt or subtle manipulation to shift responsibility for their business onto readers. “You must leave me a review because I need this many reviews to get the ad spot I want, and my success depends on that.” “You must buy my book in release week because I need to hit the bestseller lists, and my career depends on that.” “You must start to promote my books to everyone you know because I write for a living and can’t eat unless I sell more books.” “You must help me out in this way because every other author gets to write full time, and I deserve to write full time too.”

I can absolutely understand that simmering desperation that leads to tactics like this, but it’s troubling. Self-publishing has opened the door for more writers than ever before to have successful careers (which is wonderful, as far as I’m concerned), but it’s also created this weird expectation that writers should be able to make a living at it, just because they’re trying to. Has there ever been a time in the history of the world where that was true?

Production costs for self-published books *are* low, so I’ve scratched my head when I’ve seen other indies launch one. My assumption was that it was a way to organize the request/responses for family members and friends who would have donated any way.

Thank you for a detailed, measured, and informative post on this issue. I didn’t fully understand the con side of the debate and you laid it out clearly. I think KS is still a good idea, but perhaps not for books and I can agree with many of your points here. I am curious to hear your opinion on other options for authors seeking funding such as Pubslush.

I generally think of KS’s either as donations (getting nothing in return), or purchases (getting something unique). Examples of each are the Reading Rainbow fundraiser (donation) and the Veronica Mars movie (purchase- copy of the script, t-shirt, etc.).

For any donation I make I require transparency. I want my donations to have the maximum impact possible, and the best way to do that is to examine past tax-returns and budgets to determine how funds are used. For most non-profits this involves looking at a third party organization like Charity Navigator. Although this doesn’t ensure any future accountability, it does provide me with information about past behavior (and it is something I recheck every year to ensure nothing has changed). Because this information is rarely available from KS, and even then has no assurance of accuracy because it comes from the recipient of the funding, I don’t donate.

This doesn’t make me anti-author, mysoginistic, invasive of privacy, or a bully. It means that I am a responsible adult who is smart enough to want to use her money in responsible ways. I support the arts by donating to my local non-profit tutoring center (who are responsible enough to provide a financial breakdown on their website), and I support authors by buying both traditionally published and self-published books- after they are written.

I’m glad kickstarter exists even though I’ve never donated to one. I see it more as a way for fans to bring to market a creator’s product when traditional avenues have failed ie Reading Rainbow. As with any investment (and I do see donating to kickstarter as an investment where the return is the finished product) there is always a risk and it’s up to investors to assess that risk and decide if it’s worth it.

I wrote my own post from the viewpoint of a self-published author with a strong interest in ensuring we behave professionally and ethically toward the reader community. I had been wondering about jumping on the crowdfunding bandwagon myself, but after giving it some thought I’m not at all sure I would–the case you refer to has strengthened that feeling, although I still want to investigate the different models of crowdfunding to see if any are really satisfactory from both the writer and reader point of view.

I’ve long been uneasy about the potential abuses of Kickstarter, having seen how a minority of self-publishers have misused the opportunities available to them. This is not how most of us want to be seen by readers. I’m not at all sure that the author in question was unethical (she made no secret of wanting the money for living expenses) but she clearly didn’t think things through. That would be my advice to self-publishers looking at crowdfunding as a possibility: think very carefully and consider other, more traditional models first (such as the very basic one: save up the money yourself, or ebay your stuff till you have enough, or sacrifice that vacation you wanted to take, or give up your Starbucks habit.) If you really want to do a Kickstarter, post a solid business plan.

Thank you so much for posting this. You posted many of my thoughts very articulately.

I’m very careful with my charitable givings (and this isn’t charity), checking guidestar and tax papers before donating. If you’re asking the public for money you have to be willing to deal with them (either as investors or donators, whichever way you choose to look at it) asking intelligent questions about where their money is going.

I was also a little bothered by the whole “authors deserve to make a living” sentiment that came out because it didn’t seem to acknowledge that readers sometimes financially struggle too. Being an adult is hard. My budget is a tight one and before donating to anyone’s “living expenses” I would like to know about the realities of their financial situation and where specifically my money is going to. That’s not making it personal because the author is the one who brought their living expenses into the conversation in the first place.

P.S. on the subject of bullying. I absolutely agree that disagreement is not bullying.

However if a chunk of the internet shows up to disagree (even if doing so politely) then I suspect that the resulting torrent of disagreement will feel a overwhelming.

If you add that to the (depressing) near inevitability that someone who is guilty of being female on the internet is going to face death/rape threats as part of any large round of disagreement, then you get something that legitimately feels like bullying to the recipient even if the vast majority of those disagreeing are doing so politely.

I am not sure what the answer to this is. The ability to disagree on the internet is vital.

Re. the free webcomics, I do think the “free” aspects makes a difference, because in a case like this one, the author is selling her work for commercial gain. So her risk is literally ZERO because she gets paid to write and produce the book and then will get 100% of the profit from it. It’s like free money.

In addition to the advance and salary arguments, I’ve seen some people discussing KS as if it’s a grant, and again, I think the analogy is flawed, in part because if it’s a privately endowed granting organization, there are tax breaks and contracts with the grantee. If it’s a government grant, then the government can expect taxes from the commercial sale of any product produced from a grant (and in the US, grants tends to be given to those projects that are not commercially popular, precisely for that reason). Even if we consider this charity, the giver doesn’t have the option of getting the tax benefit.

Authors publishing their own work are small businesses, and small business owners assume greater risk and responsibility in exchange for the profits that flow from the business. Investors share in the profits, as well, and lenders get their money back, often with interest. Readers, in this KS scenario, are neither.

This is really like handing money to someone who asks for it so they can do something they want to do. And you know, there are authors for whom I’d do that. But let’s call it what it is and make sure readers know that’s what they’re doing. And let’s also acknowledge that for readers, this is the riskiest, least financially efficient way to acquire books.

If you’re looking at this on an individual level, like from the individual perspective of an individual author or reader, it may seem like a great exchange – author gets paid to write a book readers want. But start generalizing, start multiplying, start thinking about this as a new publishing platform, and the perspective necessarily changes, because readers are 1) regularly overpaying for books, 2) with no guarantee of their delivery and no recourse, 3) to authors who now must manage every expectation the reader has about where their money is going, 4) in an environment where they must compete with many other authors for reader money and attention, 5) and where high-profile, popular authors are far more likely to have books funded, completely undermining the supposedly democratic process advocates believe KS represents.

Funding platforms are littered with failed campaigns from people looking to have book projects funded, and for every HM Ward or Wendig or whoever, there are probably 20 debut or modestly known authors who won’t draw adequate financial support for their project. Readers already feel over-marketed to, so just imagine the kinds of stuff to which authors would have to resort to get attention to their projects.

@Jane Steen: I have been emailing and tweeting your post to anyone who wants a balanced, informative take on the Kickstarter situation. Thanks for writing it.

@Anna: The irony here is that the dissension didn’t really get loud until some authors started calling readers greedy, entitled, misogynistic piratical ingrates who didn’t think authors should be paid for their work. THAT is what got people ticked.

Someone tweeted the KS to me, and I kind of gave it the side-eye and an oh well shrug, until I saw the anti-author accusations. Then I got interested. Then I got vocal. Then I got pissed.

For days I asked to see the tweets and comments that constituted bullying. You’d think if that was happening those comments would be flying around social media like flags. But it was all “I feel” and “my impression” and “from what I heard” and the like.

And what’s really ironic here is that for all the shit some authors have been spewing at readers, readers have not, in general, been spewing it back at authors in kind. But we’re the horrible misogynistic meanies. Right.

Anna to me the answer is not to call this bullying. What you described I mean . That does not mean that what you described is a nice, polite thing to do – to me it is quite the contrary. Say you ( generic you) that you are feeling overwhelmed , that it is not fair to you that so many people showed up and you feel silenced, intimidated , whatever. But bullying – no, just no. And who issued rape threats to her?! Or are you giving a hypothetical? But all the person who feels overwhelmed by Internet debate has to do in order to not feel overwhelmed is to walk away from her computer and never come back to this discussion again. It makes me angry frankly that the word bullying gets thrown around so much and cheapens what real bullying victims go through. But of course if somebody goes beyond the Internet and finds your home address and shows up at your home – that to me is very different and looks much more like bullying. Hell if somebody indeed sent her the picture of her home – that to me is a huge problem, but nothing else was a problem from what I have read in this debate imo. Great article Jane.

Anna oh I know that it happens a lot unfortunately. I just have not seen it happen here. I do not think the answer is to have people walk away either – I tried to explain the reason why I give a side eye every time somebody calls debate like this one “bullying”. I

Anna, are we talking about this kick starter debate, or we are again talking in generalities? Of course explicit threats are bullying – it is not like you can walk away from somebody who is determined to find out where you live, or knows where your house is already. But again – besides sending her the picture of the house – if that happened, I have not seen anything problematic in this debate . I may have missed it of course.

“To see a person ask for donations to live when that person is able-bodied and can hold a job, then it becomes less obvious why they need donations for living expenses.”

I’m sure you didn’t mean to imply that writing is not a job. Or, perhaps, to imply that anyone wanting to write should first get a (“real”) job to fund her writing because she shouldn’t expect writing income to pay her bills. This is how many/most writers begin, but many/most authors’ goal is to support themselves as authors–so that writing is a profession (aka a job) and not a hobby (aka unpaid stuff I do for fun in my spare time).

“The barrier to entry for a self published author is minimal ”

You’re overlooking the fact that there IS a barrier to writing, and it’s called living expenses. I suppose if one is willing to couch-surf and dumpster-dive for every dinner, you don’t need money while writing, but I don’t know many authors who want to write on the free computers at the library and sleep on park benches.

Yes, readers struggle, too. But every time you buy a book, ANY book, your money is going to someone’s living expenses, whether it’s the artist who designed the cover, the CEO of the publisher, the guys running the servers that supply your Kindle, or the author who actually wrote the book you want to read.

I’ve donated to KS and KS-like projects, particularly books. In every case I’ve gotten my promised product. I only donate to favorite/trusted authors. If I didn’t get my product, I’d be bummed, but not pissed because I wouldn’t mind giving these authors donations. I usually read their blogs so have a feel for their character. Yes, they could be lying on their blogs and, of course, present themselves as nicer than they are, but after a few years you do get a feeling for their character.

Also, when these authors post freebies, I make a generous donation to their tip jars. I know that being a mid-list writer is a hard- scrabble existence.

@Caroline: It’s not that writing isn’t a job, it’s that the way the writing job works, we buy the product, we don’t underwrite the creation of the product in advance. Even when we buy from a publisher who gives advances, we’re funding those advances indirectly, by buying other products the publisher has already offered for sale.

We *indirectly* support the work of writing by buying the product. We do not *directly* support the work of writing before the product has been made available.

In that way, writing is like any other product-oriented business. If you want to be paid for it, you ask for money for your product. You don’t ask for money to make the product from the consumer, especially when there are no direct input costs of production that need to be offset.

If you want the act of writing supported, it makes more sense to set up a Patreon.

@Sirius: Sorry it is not exactly fair to switch between generalities and specifics.

So specifically I think the house plan thing (if it happened, and I have no reason to believe that it did not) is a game changer in that particular argument, it doesn’t make either side any more right than they were originally but it makes reasoned debate a lot harder.

In general I think that heated online debate is at constant risk of some 13 year old sociopath adding threats to the mix (threats which both recipients and those who disagree with them have to take seriously). I think the point where comments begin with “I think threat x is wrong” is the point where conversation becomes much much harder.

@Caroline: Writing, for me, is a job, in that I get paid a salary and don’t financially share in the profits of an employer. In my case, I work for a non-profit, but it’s basically the same, because as a writer for hire, I am an employee, not an owner, investor, or lender.

If I were a professional author, I would be a small business owner, and my writing would be part of the duties I would perform as a business owner. If I wanted a salary, I’d be paying myself, out of the profits I earned as a business owner. And, of course, I’d also be benefitting as a business owner, with all of the tax breaks and potential profits that come with owning a business (as well as the risks and difficulties and long. hard hours and potential failure).

So I agree with you that writing is a “job” in the sense that it’s a crapton of work, and I haven’t seen readers denying this or saying authors aren’t working when they’re writing. But it’s NOT the same thing as work for hire or a salaried job in the way that, say, my job is. And I think that difference is being elided in these discussions, along with its significance.

@Sunita: You are underwriting a lot of writing, actually–every book you buy from a publisher allows them to pay advances to other authors for books you may never even hear about, let alone buy. If you buy a self-published author’s book, you are undoubtedly underwriting her next book, too.

The good thing about KS is that it is purely voluntary–if you don’t want to underwrite that particular work, you don’t. I really don’t think it’s the best way to support a publishing career, but it’s an option (maybe the only one? I don’t know anything about Patreon) for an author who can’t afford to write the book on spec yet wants to provide her fans with the story they requested.

@Caroline: Yes, I know that, I made that point about publishers and advances in my comment. That is an indirect type of support, as I indicated. I think the distinction between direct and indirect support of the writing process is important to maintain.

Janet, thank you. Your point is what I think many who are making such comments and arguments are missing. Sure, the act of writing is creative/art, etc. But the act of publishing that art is a business. If you are a self-published author you are, in essence, a small business owner. The way you earn back the money you invested in your product (in this case a book), and earn your living expenses, is by placing your product on the market. Market forces dictate whether you make enough money to earn a living. That is how you are paid. If you make enough money, you reinvest it in the business (in this case you work full-time as a writer and create the next book). Or, as happens with many small businesses, sometimes they fail. No matter what you do, your product won’t sell. Therefore, you make a choice: continue losing money or close up shop. Let’s face it, not everyone who decides to become an author will make a living being an author. Sometimes, for whatever reason, your book (s) will simply fail on the market place.

By the way, I’m not necessarily opposed to Kickstarters. I’m kind of on the fence about it. But I think Jane’s points are very valid. There is high risk for low reward. However, if people want to donate, then by all means, have at it. But if you put something out in the public domain, especially one in which you are asking for funds, it is open for critique. And those who criticize might be vocal. Doesn’t mean those who do criticize or analyze that particular business model are anti-author, misogynists, or implying that authors shouldn’t be paid. If anything, it would have been a perfect opportunity for those in favor of the model to discuss its merits. But that’s not what happened. Instead, many resorted to name calling.

@Caroline: “You are underwriting a lot of writing, actually–every book you buy from a publisher allows them to pay advances to other authors for books you may never even hear about, let alone buy.”

Well, yes and no. Publishers pay advances based on their belief that the book they are purchasing/author they are funding for future work will sell. The publisher sees the product up front and decides, from a business perspective, that it’s worth the investment. However, if the author fails to make the publisher money, then they will, as seems to be the case with the author of the KS in question, drop the author. No more advances. My point is that advances are an investment from the publisher for what they hope are future profits. They are technically not underwriting anything other than earning a good rate of return. So yes we are technically indirectly underwriting future projects, but only those deemed profitable by publishers.

@Janet: Thanks Janet–this whole thing blew up at just the right time for me, as crowdfunding seemed like SUCH a good idea to help get my next book out. It’s shiny, and everyone is doing it…

Writing my article helped to give me a new perspective, and Kickstarter is starting to look less and less attractive. Supposing I can’t deliver, for whatever reason? Supposing I write the book and the fans hate it? Supposing…supposing…or I could raise the money the old way and write what I want on my own schedule. Because wasn’t that why I got into self-publishing in the first place?

@Edith: So Edith, do you think a model like Patreon, where you donate to support the author but not to a specific project, is a more workable/ethical idea? Some bloggers have a donate button on their blog with an ask but no obligation–should authors try this?

I’ve yet to see one person say writers don’t deserve to be compensated for their work. Those people going around everywhere claiming that this has been said should be ashamed of themselves.

I donate to kickstarters and various other fund-me sites when I can afford it, usually for writers who are coping with cancer on top of life’s other difficulties. This particular kickstarter still has me wondering what the writer was thinking because it seemed so full of contradictions. She details how successful an author she is, states she’s making a living, says she’d really love to write this book, and then tells her teen readers they’ll never get the book unless they give her the money to allow her to take the “risk” of writing it within a three-month period.

I have nothing at all against writers (or anyone) holding out their hands for charitable support if they want to receive support in that fashion. They’re free to do it and people are free to toss away all the cash they want, for whatever reason they want. Maybe this writer needed the motivation of a kickstarter to get going on a book she wasn’t as excited to write. Or maybe she was so shaken up by her publisher passing on the sequel, she only wanted to prove to them and herself she has fans who’d pay to see her write more. Those are reactions I can relate to. But she worded everything in a way that felt more like blackmailing impulsive young readers into emptying their pockets if they really wanted to know how things turned out for the characters they’d come to love. It was off-putting, though I don’t believe she intended it to come across that way. But that and the contradictory I’m-successful-but-I-need-your-money left me wondering what had motivated the thing, to begin with. Even after all this, I’m still puzzled.

I worry that many authors aren’t thinking through what they’re doing with a Kickstarter. Everyone’s talking crowdfunding and there’s that “LOOK! MONEY!” effect that has us all rushing toward the big pile of $$$.

The better models are the author-entrepreneurs who pull themselves up from rock bottom by building their readership, working hard for those initial sales and good reviews. The rule is simple: there’s no easy way up. And like all rules, it has exceptions–writers who just manage to catch a wave with their first book and never look back.

Last year it was Bookbub that was making the rounds on writer sites as the quick way to success. This year it’s Kickstarter. Next year, heaven knows.

“I’m sure you didn’t mean to imply that writing is not a job. Or, perhaps, to imply that anyone wanting to write should first get a (“real”) job to fund her writing because she shouldn’t expect writing income to pay her bills. This is how many/most writers begin, but many/most authors’ goal is to support themselves as authors–so that writing is a profession (aka a job) and not a hobby (aka unpaid stuff I do for fun in my spare time).”

It took me five years before I sold my first book. In those five years I worked and raised two small boys, the youngest of whom was a year old when I sent off my first sub. I took my writing seriously, right from the start, but there was no way I could simply live on fresh air while I tapped away on my laptop. As such, I wrote in the evenings, when the kids were in bed. At weekends my hubby would often take them out, just so I could have a few more snatched hours to write – basically, I would snatch writing time at every possible opportunity. And still held down the day job, the way the vast majority of authors do when starting out. I never saw my writing as a hobby, not ever, but I had living expenses and responsibilities like everyone else. I wasn’t entitled to a living as an author just by virtue of putting fingers to keyboard, I had to earn it, just as every other author has to.

“You’re overlooking the fact that there IS a barrier to writing, and it’s called living expenses. I suppose if one is willing to couch-surf and dumpster-dive for every dinner, you don’t need money while writing, but I don’t know many authors who want to write on the free computers at the library and sleep on park benches.”

Sorry, but living expenses are not a barrier to writing. Yes, it will take longer to write your book if you have to hold down a day job too, but that’s not a barrier. Funding the money for a decent edit and cover is a different matter, but for living expenses… no, not a barrier. I know an author who works full-time as a nurse, has two children and still manages to write at least a couple of books a year – believe me, she’s dreaming of the day she can afford to give up nursing and write full time :-)

I do think it’s interesting to get into all these different models of how the writing and publishing process works. However, many people with skin in the game feel very strongly about their choices vs. other people’s… and that way lies flamewarring.

It seems like the indie/SP world does feel that anyone who doesn’t go full time writing from Day One is a flibbertigibbet who doesn’t take their craft seriously enough. Though I figure it’s because the independence of the indie model draws a lot of folks for whom working for others is inherently anathema. Come for the self-employment, stay for the books. Mix that with the very different model of trad-pub, add in the complication of hybrid authors, and… you get people fighting about money, status, and work-life balance on the internet. Again.

Great post, Jane, and the comments are thoughtful and reasonable. Thank you. It makes such a contrast to the performative rage by authors I’ve been seeing on this, not least over at Jenny Trout’s post on the subject. I’m getting heartily sick of authors claiming to be victims, using social justice tinged arguments to justify their tantrums, and whipping up mobs against readers. It’s been far too common for too long, and I think authors need to go cold turkey on flinging their power around for vengeance.

I have to disagree with the idea that writing is a job – writing is a privilege, one denied to too many people, too many women around the world. Selling books is the job. So you write your book in how long a time it takes you, then you can put your hat out for cover art, editing, and marketing. Anything else is expecting someone to prop your hobby up. You can write in an attic, and you can write while starving. No one is forcing you to. If you can’t make a living selling your books – even with all Stacey Jay’s opportunity – then either change your business model or find another job. I very much doubt the world will suffer for the lack of yet another YA fantasy novel. If that sounds hard, then I only have to think of how many beautiful voices we never hear from who never have a chance to tell their tale, let alone flog them in the market. I’d put my money towards giving them a chance, before enabling another whiney Westerner to sit on her butt for three months and maybe write if she feels like it.

You made me think of Jean-Dominique Bauby, who wrote a book while suffering from locked-in syndrome. His partner recited the alphabet over and over and he blinked an eyelid to indicate which letter she should take down. I think it took him close to a year, but he wrote it.

There are no barriers to writing. Not for someone who’s determined to write.

I’ve participated in funding a number of kickstarters. Maybe I’ve been lucky, or maybe others have been unlucky, but about 95% delivered what was promised when promised. As for the five percent – pfft. You know the risk when you sign up.

@Ann Somerville: I take issue with the “very likely will not” (and also with the idea that Kickstarters can not form part of a business model)

Tim Pratt for example has delivered the last 4 books of his Marla Mason series via individual kickstarters (actually one of these was via reader donation in the days before kickstarter was really a thing http://www.marlamason.net/mirrors/).

Admittedly he is less guaranteed than bigger organisations but I would say that those participating are quite likely to get what they paid for.

@Annamal: I’m curious because I can’t tell but does Pratt not count any “sales” for his book in his profit calculations? And kick starters for all four books in his Marla Mason series? He has to keep going back? That’s incredible.

Yeah, that’s what I think. Sounds more like a half-arsed subscription model than anything else.

It’s also an incredibly expensive way for readers to get new books. But I guess so long as those terribly precious authors can keep paying their mortgages, does it matter if well-meaning fans end up forking well over the odds for mediocre writing? [/sarasm]

@Ann Somerville: Pretty much. If those funding the kickstarter receive exactly the reward they were promised and it’s of the expected quality (mediocre writing or otherwise)then I am not sure how anyone is actually hurt.

I agree that risks fall on the reader but I believe that a writer who approaches a kickstarter as a business proposition rather than as a charity is likely to deliver a finished product to their backers (and unlikely to risk their reputation by not delivering).

I would compare it with those who purchase hardback novels as soon as they come out rather than waiting for the inevitable paperback release, sale or simply picking it up second hand, all of which make far more economic sense.

I’ve contributed to a few crowdfunding projects (e.g., Lizzie Bennett, Reading Rainbow, one for ipad case, a poetry workshop project). For most part I’ve accepted that my contributions are donations to projects that may or may not pan out. If they pan out, I will receive a thank-you gift (e.g., a DVD set or ipad case or t-shirt) for my monetary support. If they don’t, I will receive nothing.

Crowdfunding for me is not an investment or even a pre-order payment — it is gift freely given to capitalize a project that I deem worthwhile. It is certainly not a loan or an investment or an advance on royalties — the project owner is not obligated to repay the amount given + interest, to grant me an ownership share or to assign some of their publication rights to me. And I’m not the only one who thinks this — I’m not allowed by the taxman to treat these contributions as if they were investments or loans / advances.

I’m totally fine with authors putting forward kickstarter campaigns for covering writing and publishing expenses (including if they want money to cover off their living expenses so that they can spend their time on the book). But this is not an advance and to call it so is problematic. An advance on royalties is given to author in return for future earnings on the finished book that is written by author and edited, printed, distributed, and promoted by the publisher. In return for % of the sales (royalties), the author assigns various rights (e.g., first hard-cover publication rights, world-wide English rights, first mass-market rights, right to reprint, etc.) to the publisher. I have yet to see a writer say that s/he will be assigning some of their rights in their crowdfunded book over to those who contribute so that may share in any possible profit.

I may not support a crowdfunded writing project, but it won’t be because I think books in general should be free (or that authors should not charge for their books) — it will be because I’ve decided not to support that particular writing project. I have no problem with paying for books, but I’m under no obligation to pay for all the books that are produced.

And while I’m Marxist enough to believe that all labour has value, I also recognize that in the current neo-liberal capitalist free-market, people’s labour only has as much value as the market assigns it. And the market is capricious — virtue and hard work are not necessarily rewarded with monetary recompense (just ask anyone who does housework). You may work long and hard at your writing, but that does not mean that the market will reward as much as you would like or even that the market will reward you at all.

@Annamal: “I would compare it with those who purchase hardback novels as soon as they come out ”

I wouldn’t care if people want to waste their money if authors would drop all the emotional manipulation that goes with it. If an author tries to convince their readers the author will starve to death or their career will be over if the fundraiser fails, then that crosses the line. I still don’t know why this Pratt guy couldn’t fund his second book with the proceeds of the first one he raised funds more. It’s a really crap business model. Busking, really. But busking is inappropriate when the author ends up with a product they can sell and sell and sell. It’s not a transitory effort like a song sung in the street.

It’s not one that most writers could or should emulate but if it works for him in his particular set of circumstances then I really don’t see that it is “inappropriate” (nor would I think it inappropriate for a busker to record a busking session and sell it again and again).

When I donate to a busker or a kickstarter I get exactly what I pay for(hopefully). They might go on and sell that experience to other people or even give it away, but I don’t feel that those things are inappropriate.

If someone lies or does not deliver what they promised then that is very definitely inappropriate (and it is likely they will be faced with the kickstarter equivalent of “you will never work in this town again”).

@Annamal: “I don’t necessarily think that he *has* to approach funding this way, I think he is choosing to and it is working for him”

I’m sure it is working for him. It seems that Kickstarter has become his occupation, not writing. It seems to be what is paying his bills since he can’t seem to make enough of a profit from his writing to use those proceeds to fund more books. Or, he is making a profit and is essentially placing it in his pocket while his readers pay for his overhead/expenses. Yeah, that’s a great business model alright. But hey, again, if it works for his readers than that’s great. But for me it brings up a problem of what happens if an author cannot pay for their own overhead eventually and have to continually seek funds from fans to pay for more books, especially in a series.

@Rachel: For each kickstarter he funds he absolutely has to deliver on the his promises otherwise he will never be able to fund another kickstarter.

The backers get exactly what they paid for and he gets to spend time writing a less profitable (but loved) series instead of working on more profitable freelance stuff.

It’s true that backers could get more value out of waiting until he produced an ebook for sale but then as I said, those who buy in the first year of a release are almost always paying a premium.

It also occurs to me that those who pre-order hardbacks are also running a risk, not that they won’t get their product but that the (quite expensive) book they get will disappoint them profoundly in some way. I can think of a number of authors over the years who have changed the direction or quality of their writing (as is their right) and disappointed large sections of their readers. You get what you pay for does not always hold true.

I’ve liked Kickstarter and have funded — just checked — 60 projects on it over the last 5 years. I have always viewed Kickstarter as a way of making things exist in a world where traditionally speaking they would not.

Due to my work, I’m intimately familiar with how hard it is to get some things off the ground — but also that the tools are becoming much less expensive and removing those barriers to entry. Those tools aren’t free (well, some are) but they’re significantly less expensive than they were even a few years ago, and I’m very okay pitching in to help someone cover a $1000 Unity Pro license vs 25% of your net profits (forever) plus several hundred dollars for an Unreal 3 license (Unreal 4 is 5% and ~$225/person/year). I’m comparing apples to pears, which are just sand-filled apples that are terrible, but.

I’ve funded quite a few books (and music albums, and video games, and such) and honestly the over-arching similarity for all of my projects is that… I agreed with the amounts asked and the breakdowns. Some folks were only asking for things like money for an editor, cover, and formatting. That one’s easy for me. Others, like the Feminist Frequency Kickstarter, were asking to make it their full-time job for x amount of time (as well as hugely upgrading their tools, quality and feature length). I was okay with that. I think that if I had been a huge fan of this author I would have been likely to back them as well, fully aware that the profits were just gravy. I’m not an investor, or if I am it’s in a much less tangible way — I’m investing in this single book, yes, but also in this series/author/etc to continue. Then again, I do that by buying books after the fact as well.

There is a person I back who does a KS annually, and it’s simply for the reason that it is a small-run art book and since the project founder has the list of backers, they’re able to easily contact folks who previously bought the book and ask if they’re interested in another. It lets them judge how large a run they can do — they haven’t expanded outside of Kickstarter because people REALLY like their various backer rewards, and it gives them a single place to keep track of things. They don’t sell many of the books outside of the Kickstarter, and honestly I enjoy them so much that I don’t begrudge them a dime if they were to shoot up the bestseller list.

I didn’t have a point to all of this, just wanted to put forth my experience with KS and why it works for me as a reader, but definitely not for all the books I read, nor would I want it to. Short story collection from an all-star list of favourite authors I love that a publisher didn’t go for? DONE. Short story collection emphasizing diverse voices, curated by someone with the professional weight that I am fairly sure it will happen? Totally. Book by someone I’ve never heard of, not backed by anyone I trust, whose breakdown is vague hand gestures? No. Potato salad? Gross, seriously.

I am chatty and they tend to be smallish projects so I often either have or develop a personal relationship with the creators to some extent, and seriously, I love going to stuff like GenCon and being able to say “Congrats on your Kickstarter!” (which generally launches into long conversations, although someday I’m sure LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT MY KICKSTARTER will be the new elevator pitch). I don’t get that from everyone I reach out to, and maybe KS creators vs trad-pubbed media creators feel more required to respond because the financial relationship is so intimate, but it’s something I get a lot out of versus just the final product.

Do I have criticism about some individual projects? Yah, but not many that I’ve backed — just plenty I’ve seen and passed on. Because I’m allowed to fund one artist and not another without stealing food from anyone’s mouths, and the accusations of such are really not cool.

Because it relies on donations. And more donations. Instead of building a product that becomes self-supporting.

There is no future in it.

“nor would I think it inappropriate for a busker to record a busking session and sell it again and again”

You’re missing my point. A busker using a KS to hire a recording studio and cover artist to produce a CD which they could use to support themselves would be a sustainable business model. Using a KS to ensure they could live while singing on the streets and doing nothing else, would not be.

What Pratt is doing, and what Jay’s KS did, was ask for singing money, not recording money. But then they have the ‘CD’ (book) which they can sell for a long as they want. So they get two sources of funding. In Pratt’s case, that’s apparently still not enough to pay him to produce the next book, and live by selling it. So either his actual sales are rubbish – why? – or he’s greedy.

That model of patronage is appropriate for a one off, unrepeatable experience like a performance or a painting. But not books or music CDs.

Pratt makes it work for him. That doesn’t mean it’s, in the long term, a good or sustainable model, or that it doesn’t give me an icky feeling.

People can do what they like. I don’t have to approve of it or support it. I’m certainly not calling for Jay to be shunned, although I’m going to shun some of her idiot supporters for the stupid shit they’ve said. It’s such a shame that authors have chimed on this using their considerable power of mob support and created – again – a situation where bloggers are painted as the harassers, when all they’ve done is ask reasonable questions.

@Ann Somerville: Kickstarters can definitely be used for donations but in this case (as with a lot of webcomic promotions) they are being used to sell a product (and I believe they are treated as revenue for the purposes of income tax, certainly the OJST breakdown included tax as an expense).

Admittedly the purchaser is taking more risk and paying more than they would if they waited and bought the ebook through amazon later but those who preorder books are also taking (admittedly lower ) risks and usually paying a premium.

I don’t believe that anyone should be guilted or shamed into supporting a kickstarter or that any kickstarter *has* to be funded or even that you should feel ok about them.

I am just explaining why I am ok with them as a (definitely not guaranteed) part of an authors’ income stream (provided the author is honest with their backers and always delivers exactly what they have promised).

I don’t know if it is sustainable but then I don’t know if certain forms of publishing are sustainable either.

I have funded a number of kickstarters and like the system. I never felt like I was taken advantage of and have always gotten what I funded, though sometimes it took longer than projected. I have been part of some very cool projects.

If you can’t afford to contribute, don’t. If you don’t approve for any reason, your choice.

Every aspect of this is voluntary. Nobody is participating who doesn’t want to.

Pentian uses a hybrid publishing company model. They insure that they get all the production done professionally AND manage the distribution, both physical and digital, to all the major outlets worldwide.

Beside the gifts for the pledges, the backers share in any future royalties.

They have done over 180 successful campaigns in the last 9-10 months… started in Spain and now have expanded to the USA.

One thing about Kickstart, which for me makes a big difference, while the money is pledged, I am not charged. If a goal is reached, I get charged and only then. If the goal is not reached, I do not get charged. So there is no payback (as mentioned in the beginning). So this:
“If the goal is not met, the pledged funds are automatically refunded.” is wrong.
And for me, who has pledged on Kickstarter, Indigogo and other sites, this is one reason to prefer Kickstarter over other sites:
you do front the money long before getting a possible reward, but you do not front the money unless the set goal is reached. This may be a difference of 1 or 2 credit-card bills or 60days.
Of course this has no real impact on the main points of the article, so I will stop splitting hairs.

Every aspect of this is voluntary. Nobody is participating who doesn’t want to.

I don’t think there’s anyone here — or anywhere else this is being discussed — who doesn’t get this. Even with the ‘fund this or you won’t get any more books’ language we saw in this particular KS.

But the message many of us are getting from this type of comment is SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THIS.

I am NOT suggesting that this is an intended message. I’m just saying that we discuss the pros and cons of voluntary acts all the time. In fact, if something is involuntary, there’s often less discussion to be had, at least about how to weigh all the factors that go into the decision.

And while everyone knows it’s voluntary, the mixed response to this particular KS, and the lack of knowledge many of us had (me included) about how widespread KS funding for books seems to be right now, has, at the very least, demonstrated that there are a lot of issues around these types of campaigns that need discussion, questioning, analysis, debate, and thought.

One huge shift these KS campaigns effect is that they remove the barrier between author and reader, the barrier that used to be occupied by the book itself (and by publishers). We talk all the time about reviewing a book and not the author, commenting on a book and not the author. And yet, this system is all about the author and the reader in a direct relationship. There are a lot of potential consequences to that, some good, some not so good, as we’ve seen over the past week.

In fact, one aspect we haven’t even addressed yet is how those who invest in KS campaigns should be reviewing books they gift towards. Should that be disclosed, will it affect the review, in what ways is it similar to and different from traditional book buying. And if authors are asking readers to support THEM directly, not just in the product being sold, these questions are going to get more direct and potentially more uncomfortable.

We’ve already seen accusations of bullying, misogyny, greed, piracy, and entitlement made toward prospective customers. And yet, it’s authors themselves who have initiated these campaigns and invited a direct relationship wit the reader. So maybe authors need to think about this, too. Do they want readers peering over their shoulder when they’re writing? Do they want readers wondering about a vacation the author tweets about during the time when a book is supposed to be in process? Do they want readers asking questions about how they’re going to spend their donations? Because the more common this type of KS becomes, the more that’s going to happen. And if authors aren’t comfortable with that, maybe the KS isn’t for them, either.

As a long-term Kickstarter backer who’s pledged for books, CDs, games, and even for a short film or two, my take is that I back a Kickstarter when (a) it’s a project that I want and (b) the rewards are something I can’t resist. I.e., I have a long scarf that was the reward for pledging a hundred dollars to this film project — I didn’t NEED to get the scarf, it probably cost them less than a hundred dollars, but I wanted it, and the copy of the film and the other rewards that were included in that level of backing. I’ve backed projects for intangibles (a Tuckerization) and for tangible cool things — and while I know it’s a risk (one of the first I backed is still not fulfilled after four years, and it’s frustrating, but I also have faith that it WILL show up, eventually), I pay my money and I take that risk. Because I want to. Because whatever the project was intrigued me. And sometimes that project is something that the creator will sell afterwards and make profits on (the HuMn wallet, e.g.) — but I paid for the reward I wanted and I got it. So why should I care if they used my money to make further profits? Why should a book be any different?

@Janet: “But the message many of us are getting from this type of comment is SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THIS.”

If that is the message you are taking from these comments then I’m sorry, I certainly did not intend to convey that message (and I’m pretty sure nobody else did either).

It is important to highlight the risks to the consumer and I’m glad you are doing it (and I think you are right that it would be politic for kickstarter funders to disclose if reviewing…the same as for those receiving a free copy or acquainted with the author in some way).

On the other hand, I understand that you believe that Kickstarter could be disastrous if it became the only (or even primary) funding model for books and while I agree that this would be truly unpleasant, I believe that it is highly unlikely to ever happen as it takes a very specific set of circumstances for a Kickstarter to successfully fund (reasonably well known reliable author and an idea that excites enough people that they are willing to pay a premium and assume the risks that the project will not complete).

I do not believe that dismissing those successfully completing Kickstarters now on the basis of a nebulous future is fair (unless they fail to supply their backers with what they promised or misbehave in some other way).

My take on what is perceived as “shut the f**k up about this” is coming from a select few, on both ends of this debate, and a select few, one both ends of this discussion, are continuing to fan the flames. Personal commentaries like “I doubt the world will suffer from the lack of yet another YA fantasy novel” have no bearing in a mature discussion. As a reader/and a yet-to-be published author, I find that offensive to readers/authors of any genre. For there are critics out there who feel that way toward the romance genre, be it m/f, m/m, or any another other subgenre of romance. As to the argument, “of well, how I am to feed my kids, then” I do not buy into that argument either, but also believe that argument did not come from SJ, herself, but from a select “anti-kick-starter” few who continue to point fingers in that direction, via twitter and other social media outlets. While I wouldn’t go this route, I see no reason to vilify readers/authors who choose an alternative. And that is what I have seen, from both sides of this debate.

@SuzanneF: I agree that no one in this thread took the tone that people should be quiet but I also felt that the overwhelming sentiment from authors (via Jenny Trout’s site, Chuck Wendig’s site, and Twitter) was that to question it was wrong as well as unnecessary.

@SuzanneF:
“Personal commentaries like “I doubt the world will suffer from the lack of yet another YA fantasy novel” have no bearing in a mature discussion.”

Actually, I think this is the heart of the matter. Maybe it’s because I’m a mature reader (in years if not in wisdom) that I am so damn cynical about the self-importance of authors (and note, I am one) and the value of our work. You took this as a criticism of the YA genre. I was pointing out that with millions of new books coming out each year, there is literally no such thing as an ‘essential’ novel – and there never was. Even if back when literacy was rare and books rarer, books had the power to change minds on a large scale, that hasn’t been true in the West since the Industrial Age. If the millions of English speakers stopped producing fiction tomorrow, there are still billions of people who would neither know nor care (although it might allow a few currently silenced and ignored brilliant non-English voices to gain fair attention.)

No book is irreplaceable now. No book will change the world now. Even if those books we all love and cherish had never been written, others would have taken their place and their loss would never be mourned. Stacey Jay hasn’t shaken the planet with her existing fifteen books. I doubt a sixteenth will make a difference. Same as me with my thirty plus books.

My comment was not to slam the YA genre (which I don’t know and don’t read and have no opinion on) but to point out the hubris of authors (and readers) who think that by saving *this* book, or *that* author’s career, they are doing something exceptional and worthy. At best, they are creating entertainment for a select, privileged few. If the cry for funds fails, humanity has lost nothing. Pretending otherwise is offensive.

” from a select “anti-kick-starter” few who continue to point fingers in that direction, via twitter and other social media outlets”

Really? So not from people like N K Jemisin and Chuck Wendig and Natalie Luhrs, all of whom have argued for the KS model and claiming that authors need to eat while they write?

@Ann Somerville: What you say is true of almost every piece of art (short of great masterpieces) and sounds more like an argument for not charging for art at all (or for waiting until the art you want is on special or free).

Disclaimer: I do not know SJ, and have never read any of her books, and only from following threads of this discussion do I know of JT, AS, or anyone else who has commented on this topic. As to CW–I recently attended a conference, where he was a keynote.
@ Jane, while I appreciate this issue being discussed, I respectfully disagree with your last comment, for there are comments on this thread (and via other social sites) that continue with on with name-calling, and the disparaging comments of READERS who support this kind of business model, when it comes to publishing. To dislike a book is one thing, but to attack a fan (of an author, or whoever they decide to publish) by calling them stupid and shunning them is quite a different matter. Again, this isn’t an avenue I would choose when it comes to writing/publishing, but I whole-heartedly disagree with an author attacking another author’s fan-base for their choice in supporting said author, and vice-versa. Readers should not be attacking other authors who disagree with this kick-starter/publishing funding model.

@Janet: Good point there about the reviews. Obviously you’d expect people who fund the KS to be superfans, and that type of reader will gush about the book just because their favorite author wrote it. You always get those with the big names, and the reviews are perfectly genuine and sincere and don’t have one line of critical thought in there. And that’s OK, because I guess we need and love a few fans like that.

And the plea from this author is: Do not STFU. I know it must seem like you’re not getting through, but you are.

Agreeing that I’ve seen a lot of attitude that everyone should be quiet and not question this mode of fundraising. Which I don’t really understand because if it’s working, shouldn’t authors be happy to discuss why it’s working now and how it should continue to do so?

One thing I certainly don’t see are many folk saying “here are some things to look out for if you do this” – because there’s a lot of risks that putting up a Kickstarter brings. Besides the privacy aspects (it’s a really good idea to use a business address that’s nowhere near your home address for instance), there’s also tax issues, whether you’ve set aside enough money for shipping, etc. if that’s part of your rewards/benefits package. And at least a mention of using Patron or a PayPal tip jar instead, and what the plus/minus aspects are of each. I’ve actually been kind of curious that I haven’t seen more authors giving that sort of practical advice – especially ones who’ve weighed in on this who’ve used Kickstarter. Kickstarter funding isn’t new, and this isn’t the first time someone has had problems with the response.

” I whole-heartedly disagree with an author attacking another author’s fan-base for their choice in supporting said author”

I am not attacking a fan base. I am criticising individuals who are using emotive and manipulative language to try and shut down the conversation and guilt others into supporting kickstarters because of the poor, poor starving authors.

Don’t expect me to respect people carrying on like this. And don’t expect me to respect your increasingly ad hominem arguments against my comments which you can’t even deign to reference.

@ Ann, I suggest you re-read my comment. I was saying that I found your comment re: YA novels, or lack thereof, insulting to authors/readers of ANY genre. As to citations needed to back up my comment which was to say I have SEEN idiotic comments coming from both sides of this debate, you only need to re-read your own comments, where you call readers, who support this business model, stupid and you are shunning them. That, I also took issue with. You have every right to disagree with whatever (in the universe is pissing you off) but stooping to name-calling is childish, and very unproductive, imho.

@SuzanneF: I’m sorry. I must have skipped over that comment. Calling readers names and shunning them for their decisions isn’t what I’d advocate but I didn’t see that as referring to readers.

Jay’s kickstarter did say that if the project wasn’t funded that she would stop writing and simply focus on republishing her backlist. That may be the emotional blackmail others are referring to. I took to be hyperbolic given that she self published 10 books the previous year successfully.

And I can see referring to the comments that called people stupid and evil for criticisizing the KS as the basis for pivoting away from them.

@Jane Steen: I honestly don’t think there’s any more risk of a kickstarter funder gushing than there is of someone who knows the author gushing.

Both situations warrant disclosure as part of the review and may change the way a reviewer approaches a specific book, but as long as the reader of a review is aware of the reviewers’ relationship with the author I don’t see it as concerning.

@Jane: Again, I will reiterate: I have seen idiotic comments/insults coming from both sides of this debate. Again, I will reiterate that, while I would not use this mode of getting a book to market, I do not see the good in vilifying authors who would choose a KS, and neither is calling supporters stupid effective in getting your argument across. And again, I will reiterate, for those authors/readers who are in support of this business model, for authors/bloggers/other readers who object to this, neither side is stupid or evil. But You all lose credit and respect, when you stoop to childish behaviour, such as name-calling and shunning, etc, and basically shaming each other in general for having different points of view. Now, if you all spent this much energy in trying to solve world hunger, world peace, wouldn’t the world it be a nice place in which to live?

@SuzanneF: Outside of your disagreement with Ann Somerville, can you point to all of this insulting rhetoric from readers you keep referencing? Because I’ve frankly been amazed that so many readers have kept their cool in the midst of some of comments made, for example, by Wendig and quite a few commenters to his blog post, or for that matter in the author in question’s latest blog post and comments there. For example, Wendig criticized people for talking about the author’s specific living expenses, when she actually introduced those elements in her campaign description.

@Annamal: I wasn’t actually referring to the discussion here, which is one of the reasons I pulled the sentence I responded to away from the speaker. I know not everyone who says those words is saying STFU. But when a completely obvious observation — the truth of which has never actually been in doubt — is tweeted, subtweeted, and repeated in response to reasonable questions and discussion of an issue, at the very least it translates as a dismissal of those questions and discussion.

I wonder if I am a little more blasé about Kickstarters because I’ve them for video games.

Videogame kickstarters almost always have a living expensese component built in for their developers,
they are just like any other complex IT project in that they are prone to cost overruns and unexpected delays.

Compared with this level of failure, the usually reliable kickstarters for webcomics and authors are very much a relief.

@Robin/Janet: “at the very least it translates as a dismissal of those questions and discussion.”

To me, it sounds like that refrain from authors/readers when someone reviews their book/fave book unfavourably, “If you don’t like it, don’t read it.” Which is a complete nonsense, and also disregards the point of a reading community which is to discuss, inform, and debate. That refrain is definitely meant to close down discussion, and I definitely believe the “if you don’t like it, don’t donate” response is intended the same way.

@Robin/Janet: I will change what I have been writing “author/readers” to a more general term of “people.” I have no argument with Ann Somerville, other than she has resorted to childish name-calling, in this debate. I actually agree with her and others as to why this particular method of funding a book is problematic. And as to the rhetoric of this debate, if a person wishing to follow this debate in more in-depth, (or from the start) then one just has to follow the trail of this blog and other bloggers’/commenters’ past posts and twitter feeds. (I am not on twitter or FB, but just followed links of each site, to get a more in-depth, more detailed perspective of this debate.)
@AnnSomerville: “I’m certainly not calling for Jay to be shunned, although I’m going to shun some of her idiot supporters for the stupid shit they’ve said.” Those are you words, not mine, when I entered this debate to say that both sides have said idiotic things. And I was never arguing with you, just pointing out that I objected to your method of objecting, and think it is counter-productive to a real and mature debate.

. And again, I will reiterate, for those authors/readers who are in support of this business model, for authors/bloggers/other readers who object to this, neither side is stupid or evil. But You all lose credit and respect, when you stoop to childish behaviour, such as name-calling and shunning, etc, and basically shaming each other in general for having different points of view. Now, if you all spent this much energy in trying to solve world hunger, world peace, wouldn’t the world it be a nice place in which to live?

You’ve lost me here since I’ve not done any of these activities and since this is a book blog my time and energy is devoted to books–recommending them, reviewing them, talking about them–which is my contribution to a healthy and vibrant book community.

I think it should be pointed out that those who have objected -sometimes in the most offensive manner – to criticisms of Jay’s Kickstarter or of the model itself, include a good many authors and even publishers. Eliding them with Stacey Jay’s fanbase, and thus equating them with ordinary readers to turn any criticism of the hyperbolic nonsense coming out from certain quarters, is flat out dishonest.

And what I’ve come to expect from too many people in the author and publishing industry.

I’ve spent years supporting readers’ rights very vocally, and despite sustained and nasty criticism from my fellow authors (and some of their fans.) I am disgusted by people who are no ordinary readers at all, but people with a distinct self-interest in the success of book marketing, cloaking themselves in ‘reader’ clothing and claiming to be outraged on the behalf of ‘other’ readers.

@Jane: According to Ann Somerville most books are as best:
“creating entertainment for a select, privileged few. If the cry for funds fails, humanity has lost nothing. Pretending otherwise is offensive.”

Faced with that kind of measure I’m not sure any of our endeavours for pay measure up (my own career arranging 1’s and 0’s so that they work better for people certainly doesn’t).

I am going to completely reject that point of view and say that I think your work reviewing and helping to create a community is valuable and I do appreciate it.

@SuzanneF: I am not Ann Sommerville but I am pretty sure that she meant authors who supported SJ by means of attacking readers/bloggers and then the meaning of her words becomes the opposite from what you assigned to her. That’s how I took her words anyway. She was not shunning readers or author who was doing the kickstarted but those authors who attacked people who criticized it.

Let’s call a spade a spade, here. And how words can be twisted to suit an agenda. I don’t care if the Queen, or Jesus Christ (feel free to insert your own deity) himself objected/and or agreed to this KS, but when insults are hurled, yeah, I object. I don’t care if a person is pro/con on this issue, but no one should be slinging insults at either an author or a reader or a blogger for his/her views on this issue. As to fleeing the argument, Ann Somerville, with “certain people” I ask what argument? I am not sure what that means. All I offered was my opinion, like you. I happened to disagree with how some are wording/ handling the issue on DA. But can you clarify your term “certain people?” For I can read and assume a whole lot from that. But I await your clarification.

@SuzanneF: At this point you’ve ramped up the confrontation way past a useful point. Just my opinion, as someone who, like you, is not participating on Twitter or Facebook, and is a reader who is not a fiction author (at least I am, I won’t make assumptions about you).

Also, when you say this:

Now, if you all spent this much energy in trying to solve world hunger, world peace, wouldn’t the world it be a nice place in which to live?

For me, you’re way past civil discussion-ville and way into condescension-land. You have no way of knowing what the contributors to this comment thread, or the participants in the discussion more generally, do or do not do in the way of helping to alleviate world hunger and/or world peace, apart from their contributions to this exchange.

So at this point, in my opinion, you’re not calling a spade a spade, you’re calling it a bloody shovel. Which is, of course, your prerogative, but it undermines your call to civility and reasonableness as far as I’m concerned.

I’m not sure what definition of “thrived” they’re using, unless they mean that lots of different types of publishing campaigns are running on Kickstarter, from journalism to web comics and even start-up publishing businesses.

But the part I found most provocative was the success rate they quote, which is, on average, 28% ( 7,050 campaigns, 2064 of which were funded. Success rates differed, of course. It looks like comics may be at the top (52% success rate), while journalism didn’t do as well (17%). Apparently $22M went to Kickstarter publishing campaigns in 2014, which isn’t exactly chump change.

There’s a bit more in the article, but there definitely seems to be some energy around growing the use of Kickstarter for publishing, despite the IMO not-exactly-stellar success rate. Which is interesting, and, IMO, cause for thorough, candid discussion of the pros and cons of Kickstarter and similar fundraising platforms.

I think complaining that the topic of discussion is not valuable in comparison with world hunger or alternatively dismissing most art as creating entertainment for a select, privileged few could be put in the conversational category “statements which are true but not helpful in discussion”.

@Sunita and @ Jane: So in other words, *SHUT THE FUCK UP.* I think civility was surpassed long before I weighed in on this debate. Which was to ask for civility in the first place. But I see condescension prevails to those who point out the obvious. And @ Annaml: neither is name-calling.

@SuzanneF: This is the last time I’m going to address you because I basically feel like you are talking past me (and others) whether intentionally or not.

I did not tell you to SHUT THE FUCK UP. I said that the comments regarding name calling are no longer a productive discussion. It has little to do with whether the KS business model is a good one, whether it is harmful or helpful to the publishing ecosphere, whether it harms readers or benefits them, etc.

I’m asking you politely and in good faith to join the conversation and debate about whether KS as a business model makes sense. If you can’t engage in that discussion but just want to talk about name calling then I’d ask that you do so in another space.

This year, make it a priority to avoid preordering games. Yes, you might miss out on a day one release on occasion, but who wants a broken video game on release day anyway? If Evolve launches next month and you can’t get online, it won’t matter whether or not you own it.

So when you find yourself perusing the local GameStop this year, stop and think before putting down $5 for the next big release. Why not wait and see if the game actually works before investing in a product that the developer didn’t finish?

@Jane: Yep that about sums up pre-ordering for games from companies you don’t absolutely trust (or alternatively you could learn to love a version of revolutionary France where peasants race around on their butts and characters wander into cut scenes and talk loudly about the exits in French).

There are studios which produce reliably consistent work and include benefits for pre-ordering but it is always a risk for those buying games.

And yes, Jane, I too asked politely for both sides to stop the mud-slinging. So on that we agree. But I haven’t seen you seen you ask another poster, who agrees with this KS starter model of publishing to shut up. So why are you shutting me down? Because I pointed out that there are those who are reverting to childish name-calling? What a way to have a healthy debate. But enough energy spent on this, and yes, I do have better things to do, like my volunteer work to solve real issues. Not beat up people who disagree with the status quo.

@SuzanneF: Here is the problem. “Let’s move on from the issue of name calling. It’s unproductive.” is directed toward everyone. Why would you assume it was directed to just you?
Don’t take offense were none is given.

Oh good to know, Jane, that your comment of “let’s move on the issue of name-calling” is directed at everyone. But I didn’t, and don’t, see you direct this request at anyone else who has a different opinion on this matter. So, as Sunita said, let’s call this a shovel. Or rather, a whole pile of manure. I called out a published out for her childish behaviour/name-calling antics. I see this no differently from all who have called out ABB, in the past. I raised the “elephant in the room” so to speak, and was told to move on. As I have no personal connection to DA or posters on DA (or other sites) my feelings are perfectly intact, so no offense taken by DA telling me to move on. But fwiw, I do appreciate the time DA and other romance sites dedicate to reviews.

@Annamal: “alternatively dismissing most art as creating entertainment for a select, privileged few”

I never claimed that. I said that Kickstarters for novels are only creating entertainment for a select privileged few. And I stand by that. Great art works have a value to humanity that novels can no longer claim, because of the incredible dilution created by the sheer volume of words being put out there.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I was very specifically referencing fiction. If you like, you can extend that to Hollywood movies and most TV shows. But I never claimed all human endeavour – and certainly not all art – was of limited impact or value. I’m just unconvinced, with seven billion people and counting on the planet, that any one individual can much much of an impression any more.

@Annamal: “I don’t how that is not dismissing the vast majority of art currently being created as for a privileged few.”

I don’t know how to explain it better than I have, and frankly, I don’t have much faith that the attempt would be worth the effort. It’s also derailing the topic. If you disagree with me, fine. No harm is done to any author or artist from one woman’s opinion on the internet, one way or the other.

@Ann Somerville:
I went looking for the New Years advice assuming that it would be about disengaging from unfruitful discussion (which, is an awesome thing to do )and it was:

“This is not to say that there aren’t some people out there that are terrible human beings. There are. And some people have shown conduct repeatedly online that is juvenile, immature, and not worthy of debate. Ignore them. Answer the people you respect and admire and leave the others behind.”

I suppose it’s rather late in the discussion but I will go ahead and toss a couple more things into it.

I think Kickstarter serves a great purpose for authors and readers both. The first time I closely observed a kickstarter for a book, an SFF author [who is a full-time author with contracts, deadlines, etc. in traditional publishing] mentioned on twitter that she had a story about one of the secondary characters in her series universe that wouldn’t get told because it just couldn’t stretch past novella length and the publishers wouldn’t be interested.

Followers started begging her to write it anyway. She explained that between living expenses and deadlines, she couldn’t just take off a month to write something that might not bring in any income. It was a business decision.

Then someone suggested kickstarter. The snowball grew. She finally set up a kickstarter not even sure that there was enough interest to justify it, but once word spread, lots of people supported her, and many at the higher levels because they wanted the various items offered, which included autographed art from the cover artist, and other items that some people would definitely find worth the money committed.

It was hugely successful, her readers were happy, she was able to write a story that had been in her heart for a long time without an outlet. Everybody was happy.

I’ve seen other such situations. I simply don’t see how this abuses readers. I don’t think kickstarter will ever take over as you fear, Jane. Quite simply, as kickstarter figures demonstrate, most authors don’t have enough support from readers to make it work.

I prefer kickstarter to the other forms of fundraising because the person truly does have the best hope of the business/project getting made and receiving what they paid for, because it requires enough people to buy into it to secure that end, and my $10 won’t get drawn out of my account unless enough other people have also seen the project as something desirable and pledged their money, too.

@Patricia Burroughs [aka pooks]: I never said it was a system that abuses readers. I don’t know how an inanimate thing can abuse a person. What I said was that the risk shift left readers in an unfavorable position.

The funny thing is that I wrote extensively about the price fixing of the publishers and overly high prices of ebooks and many authors agreed with that. Yet, the KS arguably requires readers to pay even higher prices than that of a traditional hardcover. There’s some irony there.

@Jane: I’ve never seen a kickstarter that required readers to pay higher prices than hardcovers. The ones I’ve participated in have given very low cost options, so that’s new info for me. Have you seen this as a common practice?

But even if that were so, anyone who can’t afford the expense or doesn’t think it’s a worthy expense can simply wait for the book to be released later.

@Robin/Janet: I was concerned by the lead-in to this recap of the #futurechat on crowdfunding: “the UK’s Penguin Random House imprint Cornerstone will take over publishing trade editions of books crowdfunded on the Unbound platform.”

It worries me that commercial publishers are jumping on the crowdfunding bandwagon. It smells like an extension of assisted self-publishing to me. So Penguin Random House are asking readers to pre-fund books now? Both arrangement tie the author into publishing via one company, so very different from the KS model whereby an author receives money to spend as she wishes on the honor system–she could very well spend it all on shoes if she wants, or a completely different book project if that’s where the muse leads her.

As for Jay’s levels–I wouldn’t have participated. I did participate in a KS where for $25 I got a digital copy of the book and an autographed copy of the print edition. Could I have waited for them both to be available from Amazon and gotten them cheaper? Probably. But for me, the few dollars difference wasn’t a big deal, and of course they were having to pay shipping, etc.

But $10,000? I’ve never seen a KS for books that went that high. Also, I know several people who have done KS to raise funds, and the higher levels they put aren’t really because they think somebody will give that much. They’ve spent a lot of time brainstorming something fun with value to put there, but with no expectation that somebody will actually buy in at that level.

$10,000??? I’m still boggled at that for a book. Films, yes. Books? Wow.

@Patricia Burroughs [aka pooks]: For some reason your other comment is not loading. No for SJ’s KS, the buy in was $10 ebook. At $60 you got a paperback. The biggest reward level was $500.

But yes, there are author KS with thousand dollar+ reward levels. I get them sent to me, not regularly – maybe a couple a month – to promote. which, obviously I don’t because I’m not a fan.

And yes, the debate did become anti-author. I had several people on my tweet stream ask me earnestly why I was anti-author. They used that term specifically. This morning I was asked why I was spending so much energy on arguing against authors getting paid. There were hundreds of tweets from authors and others in support of Stacey Jay that were basically accusing people who did not support the KS business model of being against authors, against authors being paid. That’s actually why I wrote the post. To explain that disagreeing with the business model was not anti author or bullying or misogynistic.

@Patricia Burroughs [aka pooks]: I think it’s been that way since the beginning. Authors calling readers entitled bullies, etc. for daring to question the model. Wendig’s post and comments a good example. Author subtweets galore, too.

Hmmm. I guess the online debate may have broken down that way (but I really am not sure I agree). However, the bigger picture–kickstarter as a model–definitely has reader support, and numbers would indicate far more readers are supporting it than authors using it, or the books wouldn’t be getting funded.

It’s still kind of weird to me that suddenly in this era being an author is a job with a living wage, that can support a family of three (2 kids, husband) and a mortgage. (I’m not pulling that from nowhere – in her followups Jay is trying support all of that and says she’s the breadwinner, while her husband takes care of the kids. Which, seriously, I get stressed even thinking about, that is rough.) I mean, I don’t begrudge anyone that, but in college I was specifically told in writing classes (by teachers who were writers, several publishing still) that you got a day job and hoped by the time you were older you might have enough income to quit that day job. But that you’d better not depend on it, because income in the writing field would fluctuate like crazy.

Is this suddenly that much more common? I just assumed most people were managing by having two incomes to work with – either that via partner/spouse – or the second job.

I sold my first book in 1987. In romance it was extremely common for writers to be full-time and bringing in enough money to live on, sometimes a lot more than that. The advance system was originally devised to do just that–give a writer enough to live on to write the book. Max Perkins, Editor of Genius by A. Scott Berg illustrates that from the early 20th century. But as time went on, typical first-book advances didn’t grow and by the latter 20th century, they were rarely more than a few thousand dollars. Romance writers who were prolific could have fairly steady income of advances and royalty checks for books already published, and then published in foreign language editions.

So, no, it’s not new that authors can support themselves writing. In fact, with the decline of traditional publishing many authors who supported themselves by writing full-time have found it difficult if not impossible to do so now. Some have found great success by bringing out their backlists, but many have not. Not all backlist books weather the decades. Not all books have a readership still interested.

My guess is that the percentage of writers who make good money self-publishing compared to those who don’t is comparable to the percentage of writers who made good money in traditional publishing and those who didn’t. That wasn’t your question, though. It was a long rambling path to the answer, no, it isn’t new that authors can support a family with their writing. Most can’t. Many can. And many have no other job skills after decades of doing nothing but writing fiction.

@KB I think the argument by authors would be if I can get donations to fund that lifestyle, why is that wrong? (ergo the above tweet about everyone’s livable wage being different). And I think that’s one of the really personal questions that a KS like this can legitimately give rise to.

We talk a lot here about separating the personal from the professional but when you are asking for personal expenses in a professional setting, then those lines get super blurred. In a charity or any other situation where you are asked for donations, it’s considered appropriate to delve deeper into where the money is going and can it be used more efficiently or can you ask for less. But in this case, asking questions is being characterized as inappropriate. In that, if you object, then don’t donate but don’t ask questions either. It’s a strange and very awkward dynamic.

I’ve seen multiple KS for books and – unless something catastrophic happens to my favorite author – it’s never going to happen. I’m agog at just the thought of it. If that makes me “anti-author” then so be it. I’ll support your product by buying said product when it is available in the market. I am never going to support the idea of paying for a book that might never get started (let alone finished), edited properly, or published. The mind boggles.

@Jane – yeah I’m seeing that sort of “this isn’t wrong” response from authors and that’s also kind of what flummoxes me – the word wrong isn’t in there, not in most of the comments/tweets where people are asking questions. I see a lot of people asking if this is a model where you can actually earn a living – and there’s a reason for the skepticism. I’m glad if things have changed! (In the past I’ve had to talk some employers into hiring me because I have an English degree.) But I’d like to hear more about how this can be done. (Like insurance – I’m self employed and only just now can I easily buy a single plan. Two years ago I couldn’t find anything that I’d actually consider real insurance.)

I mentioned author/kickstarter privacy earlier for a reason. When I read Jay’s Kickstarter I worried because she mentioned her mortgage – I was concerned where this would go amongst the kickstarter crowd. It’s now common to research this information out of curiosity (as in “hmm, how much do houses cost in this neighborhood?”). I’m serious also about wishing other authors would write more about how they manage privacy protection and safety, especially with online fundraising and perhaps online presence in general.

@MrsJoseph: I don’t tend to participate in KickStarters either (it’s a hangover from the fact that KS only started to become available in my corner of the world relatively recently).

I do think KickStarters give readers a certain (very limited) amount of power to make it more likely that a product which caters to their particular interests (whether those be more diverse video game characters, the continuation of a series or hell I don’t know…dinosaur erotica) will exist.

@Annamal: I disagree but I do see your point. The issue lies – for me – in accountability. There is no accountability – the producer is not required to produce. It works better in the long run if the producer does produce…but they are not required to do so.

How does giving someone money with no guarantees garner any power of production? I would be more inclined if the money included some kind of contract that returned my money – or even required the money to be given to a charity if [the product] cannot be produced.

Ilona Andrews wanted to write a book that she had no publisher/contract for – so she started a free serial on her site. She posted 1/2 to a full chapter almost weekly. Things happened based on reader comments.

Then she had it professionally edited and made available for sale in multiple formats. I bought the [extremely expensive] hard copy in order to support the next book in the series (which she is writing now in the same way).

If Ilona Andrews came to me with a completed book and said “Kickstarter for Editing!” I would probably be down. But for a non-written book? No, I can’t do it. It’s akin to gambling with very bad odds.

@MrsJoseph: I think there is a certain amount of accountability in the form of community goodwill/reputation(certainly I think someone who fails to deliver on kickstarter promises is going to suffer a reputation hit). I agree that this is intangible and hard to measure and much riskier for the purchaser.

Giving someone money to produce a product for niche market means that, all things going well, that niche market has another product ( and perhaps becomes slightly less niche). As I said it is a very limited power and comes with no guarantees but since it has resulted in some products that otherwise would not make economic sense to their producers I’m glad that it exists.

As I said much earlier I think Kickstarters are most likely to be funded when the person trying to Kickstart has already supplied a lot of free content and has demonstrated their reliability over time (i.e. if that person has built up a lot of goodwill with their readers).

P.s. I love Clean Sweep and was happy to be able to buy it as a way of paying for the enjoyment I got out of reading the serial.
Seanan McGuire did the same thing with her Velveteen Vs series and I love that as well.

Copyright

FTC Disclaimer

We do not purchase all the books we review here. Some we receive from the authors, some we receive from the publisher, and some we receive through a third party service like Net Galley. Some books we purchase ourselves. Login